Watching comic-book guy brag that he was a REMF Marine 40 years ago was entertaining the first 13 times...

For what it is worth, it is my recollection that all Marines are expected to trained as a combat infantryman and be combat ready regardless of their specific assignment. I don't think that is necessarily true of the other branches of service.

Davetard is still a combat infantryman. He serves under General Mills.

Davetard is still a combat infantryman. He serves under General Mills.

He's still a jarhead. Too bad it's a jar of peanut butter.

Thanks...I'm here all week...

If you think you are so darn funny, then I suggest the following wardrobe for the 10 PM set:

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

The skinny: Materialist neuroscience argues that the mind does not really exist. The mind is merely the functions of the brain or a simulacrum thereof. The mind is merely the functions of the brain, so you do not really have a mind, let alone a soul or free will.

Materialist biomechanics is equally empty. †Materialist biomechanics argues that flight does not really exist. Flight is merely the function of wings, or a simulacrum thereof. Flight is merely the function of wings, so birds don't really fly, let alone soar or move freely through the sky.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I don't know if the IDers' ability to keep me entertained will last the year.

ID is scientifically vacuous and intellectually sterile. Any such discussion is bound to be repetitious. When the ID argument is analyzed, most such fallacies revolve around the fundamental principles of scientific methodology and semantics. Actual evidence is rarely the issue.

As the political influence of Intelligent Design wanes, then the pedagogical purpose (and presumably entertainment value) of responding wanes as well.

The skinny: Materialist neuroscience argues that the mind does not really exist. The mind is merely the functions of the brain or a simulacrum thereof. The mind is merely the functions of the brain, so you do not really have a mind, let alone a soul or free will.

Thanks for posting that rare example of Canadian Logicô *. †In a similar vein:

Light is merely the function of a light bulb so you do not really have any light, just a light bulb.

* Named after MinLogic, a word coined by the BibleScience Newspaper** people a couple of decades ago. †It was supposed to stand for Minnesota Logic, but it turned out to mean MINimal LOGIC.

** A group of pre-ID creationists from the Minneapolis, Minnesota area.

Thanks, ToSeek, yes, that's what I was trolling for! (Trolling is a fishing term up here....) †

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,13:09)

I don't know what the #### they're going to do. There are problems with trying to change names again. For one thing, it didn't work the last time, it didn't even come close, and for another, they'd have to throw overboard all the young, enthusiastic guys like Casey and Salvador who are tied to the Intelligent Design anchor.

I'm sitting here watching a show about the Galapagos and how the older blue-footed booby chick pushes the younger out. Cruel, but effective (and if we teach ID in schools, boobies won't be cruel to each other anymore?). Maybe we will see the younger ID hatchlings get sacrificed. Wouldn't that be ironic (and funny)?

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,13:09)

They certainly haven't figured out what to do. At the moment they're in a holding pattern, just babbling amongst themselves on blogs, with no big moves on the horizon.

True, but there's some weird upcoming creationist excrement out there just waiting for the IDudes/UDudes to step in it and track it in...I promise... Creationism never sleeps.

It just insists that it's not really that late and that it hasn't been drinking.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"The design Inference" was published in 1998 and told us how to use the Explanatory Filter to detected design. Next year will mark a decade of its non-use and of design's non-detection. ID is a fertile ground indeed!

Likewise, my dog's run is fertile ground, for roughly the same reason.

At least your dog isn't pretending that his output is scientific.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

First, it appears as though I have been "secretly banned" from UD. My password no longer matches my username. I can tell that my UD password is being typed correctly because I had FireFox remember it. Still, my former login: franky172 no longer works with that or any of my other website passwords. At first I guessed this was some sort of internal glitch on UD, but then I found this (from a link on ATBC, UDDT):

Ah, the old passwords don't match trick. As Maxwell Smart would say, "That's the oldest trick in the book".

Of course I could be wrong, FireFox might have forgotten my password, and I may have forgotten it too. If so I'm sorry.

In any case, Denyse O'Leary appears to be deeply mistaken about materialistic theories of the mind, and she seems to want to make this as clear as possible. First she links to a survey paper that supposedly shows how dualist theories of the mind work. Unfortunately the paper has no actual reference to dualism, or any sort of mind process apart from the material brain. The point of the article appears to be "the brain can re-map iteslf", which Denyse takes to mean "the mind exists as a separate entity from the brain". Well, OK. But Denyse appears to not understand that a) her conclusion is not supported by the data and b) there are no scientific tests that we can perform that would confirm or disconfirm her hypothesis. i.e. Her hypothesis is a science stopper (without further qualification, if she said "mind is separate from brain and can communicate across vast distances via ESP" we might have something to work with).

Quote

But if neuroscience can get along quite well using a non-materialist paradigm, as Mario demonstrates, then science is not applied materialism. And THAT has momentous consequences. can get along quite well using a non-materialist paradigm, as Mario demonstrates, then science is not applied materialism. And THAT has momentous consequences.

First of all, Mario has not shown that neuroscience can "get along" with a non-materialist paradigm - all of his results were generated with "materialist" techniques and his results are commensurate with existing neuroscientific theories. Further, Denyse appears to think that science ends with the publication of a paper. But the goals of science are further inquiry - what questions does Mario ask that lead to further "non-materialist" investigations? As far as I can tell, the answer is "none".

Plus:

Quote

And what they canít explain, they can deny or rule out of order (psi, for example).

Well, evidently Denyse has evidence that psychic abilities exist! Where might this be? (wait, let me guess - I have to buy the book!).

Itís like what Judge Jones said regarding irreducible complexity, that Behe ignores co-option, as though co-option is a real phenomenon and not just a made-up story that defies evidence and logic. Miller continues this silly tradition with reference to the Type 3 secretory system, as if this should end all debate about the power of Darwinian mechanisms to produce highly complex and functionally integrated biological machinery.

So, let's get this clear. They say that co-option is not a real phenomenon and the evidence they provide for this is a link to a previous story on UncommonDescent. Well, case closed, i'm convinced. However, for the other 99.999% of people, GilDodgen has some actual work to do proving that co-option is not an option. And posting to where DS says "co-option is not an option" does not count!

How inane! Is this what passes for proof in ID circles? A link to a discussion where they proclaimed it so? No wonder they are going nowhere fast. It's hardly a "cite" now is it? :)

I'm still waiting for Dembski's "ID friendly univeristy lab", or whatever it was, to be announced! I suspect it will never be.

And any news on Biologic? Over at OW they are talking it up and wanting to buy shares in it!Biologic

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Likewise, my dog's run is fertile ground, for roughly the same reason.

At least your dog isn't pretending that his output is scientific.

No, actually, my dog has steadfastly maintained that her output is scientific. †She repeatedly recites the "demarcation problem," for example. And produces pseudomath I'm not qualified to evaluate. But when doing the real work of cleaning shit off my shoe it seems clear that she's got it wrong.

Same experience with ID.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Oldmanintheskydidntdoit beat me to a mention of the latest GilDodgen rubbish, but the tard level is so high it is worth a fuller quote:

From http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/

Quote

...... Ken Miller, in a BBC documentary entitled A War on Science, distorts and misrepresents Bill Dembskiís methods for inferring intelligent design.

Kenís constant distortion of ID theory is very revealing. He canít address the real arguments, evidence, or logic, so he makes stuff up. Itís like what Judge Jones said regarding irreducible complexity, that Behe ignores co-option, as though co-option is a real phenomenon and not just a made-up story that defies evidence and logic. .......

Personally, I donít think that Ken is insincere. I think that his entire professional life, and sense of purpose in life, is so invested in Darwinism that he canít imagine that this philosophy might be wrong. If it turns out that it is wrong, Kenís life will have been a wasted effort, and no one wants that engraved on his tombstone.

As long as they can keep this up, we need have no worries about whether UD will continue to be entertaining.

Edited to add: To further support my point about projection, Dr. Dr. Dembski has just followed up GD's post by saying, in small part,

Quote

Miller has a talk that he gives on campuses throughout the U.S. titled ďThe Collapse of Intelligent Design.Ē Let me suggest that if there is any collapsing going on, it is in Millerís psyche and in his increasing inability to prosecute a reasoned argument when it comes to ID.

So, let's get this clear. They say that co-option is not a real phenomenon and the evidence they provide for this is a link to a previous story on UncommonDescent. Well, case closed, i'm convinced. However, for the other 99.999% of people, GilDodgen has some actual work to do proving that co-option is not an option. And posting to where DS says "co-option is not an option" does not count!

How inane! Is this what passes for proof in ID circles? A link to a discussion where they proclaimed it so? No wonder they are going nowhere fast. It's hardly a "cite" now is it?

I'm still waiting for Dembski's "ID friendly univeristy lab", or whatever it was, to be announced! I suspect it will never be.

And any news on Biologic? Over at OW they are talking it up and wanting to buy shares in it!

They have to deny co-option because that's all they're doing. What do you think quote mining is? Co-option! †

Besides, the Dembskis of the world don't understand reusing anything, anyway. They spit out their silver spoons and think that's proof of their "being from Texas." (Kind of like a president I could mention.) I've used fishing line to substitute for a screw I didn't have, but they don't build anything, they just steal from other's finished constructions. †That's all ID is.

I'd like to see Dembski's ass in the woods, without his 'puter or his palm pilot; see how helpful he is, trying to light a fire without a match. "We are the arsonists." ("Bill, does Eve here have to start this fire too? I'm awfully grouchy when I don't get coffee.")

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Joseph at UD (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/#comment-102149) continues to not understand what science is:

Quote

And in the end science is about reality. That is science is the search for the truth, ie the reality (behind the existence of that we are investigating), via our never ending quest for knowledge. And you cannot define science to arbitrarily pick-n-choose reality.

I would disagree. I think most people who study phil-science are "instrumentalists" - i.e. they hold that science is about useful theories that make accurate predictions and model the world around us - not necessaruly theories that are accurate models of underlying "truth". For example, "science" as commonly defined is incapable of discerning the difference between common notiions of "reality" from the "brian in a jar" hypothesis, and as such can not be a pure search for underlhying truth. Based on the intrumentalist understanding of "science" then, we see that methodological naturalism is the only tenable set of rules by which to formulate theories that are predictive and useful.

Please note that this distinction does not derive from an arbitrary "choice of reality", but is instead a set of strict limits on science. Ones that ID does not seem to adhere to.

Children you missed the most important event in the Western cultural cannon, if you did not see Sir (yes a real frikken SIR) Lawrence Olivier read a few lines on the 's' page of a London Phone book to a completely vacant Royal Albert Hall on (drum roll...) Q4 †by Spike Milligan. OK,ok it wasn't as funny as Dembski ona dull day BUT that was the point. This was funnyer tho'

Insects auditioning for the next series of David Attenborough are regaled by Milligan's insect casting director's tales of filming a Charlton Heston epic and of "neutronizing Adolf Hitler by squirting formic acid from my posterior!"

Continuing in a similcra vien.

An ode, an obsequitor at a fun-a-real for the ungratefuckers of our species who must fortheclothear restitch history eat time out of ance-antsy-ante-anti-story to be reminded of their reason for the ransom paid that was the moment at witch they were concieved arrrghter a rampage by the nobility of mice.......fat mice.

To be or not to-ebay that is the consumptionô. #quote mine that u crazy barstars#

Whether tis nobbler in the hind to suffer the richturdhuge :? †or to fartrage the ardor of hardor ...er of Arden that is the plaything.

The proud mans fartmation.The insolence of Baptist's should bear the pangs of dispised blogovators.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

I'd like to see Dembski's ass in the woods, without his 'puter or his palm pilot; see how helpful he is, trying to light a fire without a match. "We are the arsonists." ("Bill, does Eve here have to start this fire too? I'm awfully grouchy when I don't get coffee.")

Soami

You're a slow burn K.

Should we throw another boyman on the fire?

I'm thinking Ber(n)linkski (the both of them).

Berningman ....ahhhh..... I feel a nice glow.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Frankey - Good Post - It looks like UD's loss is our gain, but I think you are wrong about a couple of things:

1. †Dr. Peter Venkman has been doing research in the area that Denyse is focused in on.

2. †We were able to †obtain a picture of the latest equipment that Densyse will use to help Dr. Venkman in his research. †

The only holdup thus far, is that Dr. Venkman is adament that the research process is enhanced with using ONLY 18-20 year-old co-eds, and he is still in the process of selecting the appropriate parties. †However, Dr. Venkman, in previous studies, HAS shown that Friday nights are a GREAT selection opportunity, so he is very confident and feeling somewhat lucky!

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Oldmanintheskydidntdoit beat me to a mention of the latest GilDodgen rubbish, but the tard level is so high it is worth a fuller quote:

From †http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/ †

†

Quote

...... Ken Miller, in a BBC documentary entitled A War on Science, distorts and misrepresents Bill Dembskiís methods for inferring intelligent design.

Kenís constant distortion of ID theory is very revealing. He canít address the real arguments, evidence, or logic, so he makes stuff up. Itís like what Judge Jones said regarding irreducible complexity, that Behe ignores co-option, as though co-option is a real phenomenon and not just a made-up story that defies evidence and logic. †.......

Personally, I donít think that Ken is insincere. I think that his entire professional life, and sense of purpose in life, is so invested in Darwinism that he canít imagine that this philosophy might be wrong. If it turns out that it is wrong, Kenís life will have been a wasted effort, and no one wants that engraved on his tombstone.

As long as they can keep this up, we need have no worries about whether UD will continue to be entertaining.

Edited to add: To further support my point about projection, Dr. Dr. Dembski has just followed up GD's post by saying, in small part,

Quote

Miller has a talk that he gives on campuses throughout the U.S. titled ďThe Collapse of Intelligent Design.Ē Let me suggest that if there is any collapsing going on, it is in Millerís psyche and in his increasing inability to prosecute a reasoned argument when it comes to ID.

To which I can only add, "pppfffffffftt!"

The ID guys are so desperate they're now digging up old stuff to make it look like they've got something new to say. The BBC programme Gil refers to was shown in Jan 2006. The DI are doing a similar thing in posting a Phil Johnson article recently that actually appeared in a magazine in October 2005.